Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T23:35:44.989Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Re-conceptualising the relationship between de-familialisation and familialisation and the implications for gender equality – the case of long-term care policies for older people

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 October 2018

Thurid Eggers ,
Christopher Grages ,
Birgit Pfau-Effinger Open the ORCID record for Birgit Pfau-Effinger [Opens in a new window]  and
Ralf Och
Thurid Eggers
Affiliation:
Department of Social Sciences, University of Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany
Christopher Grages
Affiliation:
Department of Social Sciences, University of Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany
Birgit Pfau-Effinger*
Affiliation:
Department of Social Sciences, University of Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany
Ralf Och
Affiliation:
Department of Social Sciences, University of Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany
*
*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article explores how far the concepts of de-familialisation/familialisation are adequate to the classification of long-term care (LTC) policies for older people. In the theoretical debate over LTC policies, de-familialising and familialising policies are often treated as opposites. We propose re-conceptualising the relation between de-familialisation and familialisation, arguing that they represent substantially different types of policy that, in theory, can vary relatively autonomously. In order to evaluate this theoretical assumption, this article investigates the relation between the generosity level of LTC policies on extra-familial care, and the generosity level of LTC policies on paid family care, introducing a new multi-dimensional approach to measuring the generosity of LTC policy for older persons. It also explores the consequences of this for gender equality. The empirical study is based on a cross-national comparison of LTC policies in five European welfare states which show significant differences in their welfare state tradition. Data used are from document analysis of care policy law, the Mutual Information System on Social Protection, the European Quality of Life Survey and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. The findings support the argument that de-familialising and familialising LTC policies can vary relatively independently of each other in theory. It turns out that we get a better understanding of the relationship between LTC policy and gender equality if we analyse the role of different combinations of extra-familial and familial LTC policies for gender equality. The paper brings new insights into the ways welfare states act in regard to their LTC policies. It helps to clarify how the concept of de-familialisation/familialisation can be understood, and what this means for the relationship between LTC policies and gender equality.

Keywords

familialisationde-familialisationfamily carelong-term care policywelfare stategender equality
Type
Article
Information
Ageing & Society , Volume 40 , Issue 4 , April 2020 , pp. 869 - 895
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2018

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Anttonen, A and Sipilä, J (2005) Comparative approaches to social care: diversity in care production modes. In Pfau-Effinger, B and Geissler, B (eds), Care Arrangements in Europe – Variations and Change. Bristol, UK: Policy Press, pp. 115–134.Google Scholar
Anttonen, A and Zechner, M (2011) Theorizing care and care work. In Pfau-Effinger, B and Rostgaard, T (eds), Care Between Work and Welfare in European Societies. London: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 15–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bambra, C (2004) The worlds of welfare: illusory and gender blind? Social Policy and Society 3, 201–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bambra, C (2007) Defamilisation and welfare state regimes: a cluster analysis. International Journal of Social Welfare 16, 326–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baríková, J (2011) Long-term care in the Czech Republic: on the threshold of reform. In Österle, A (ed.), Long-term Care in Central and South Eastern Europe. Frankfurt am Main, Germany: Peter Lang, pp. 81–105.Google Scholar
Bettio, F and Verashchagina, A (2012) Elderly Care in Europe. Provisions and Providers in 33 Countries. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.Google Scholar
Bettio, F, Simonazzi, A and Villa, P (2006) Change in care regimes and female migration: the care drain in the Mediterranean. Journal of European Social Policy 16, 271–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Colombo, F, Llena-Nozal, A, Mercier, J and Tjadens, F (2011) Help Wanted? Providing and Paying for Long-term Care (OECD Health Policy Studies). Paris: OECD Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Costa-Font, J (2010) Family ties and the crowding out of long-term care insurance. Oxford Review of Economic Policy 26, 691–712.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Daly, M and Lewis, J (1998) Introduction: conceptualising social care in the context of welfare state restructuring. In Lewis, J (ed.), Gender, Social Care and Welfare State Restructuring in Europe. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate, pp. 86–103.Google Scholar
Daly, M and Lewis, J (2000) The concept of social care and the analysis of contemporary welfare states. British Journal of Sociology 51, 281–298.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Da Roit, B and Le Bihan, B (2010) Similar and yet so different – cash-for-care schemes in six European countries’ long-term care policies. The Milbank Quarterly 88, 286–309.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Department of Health and Children (2016) Nursing Homes Support Scheme Information Booklet. Health Service Executive. Available at http://www.hse.ie/eng/services/list/4/olderpeople/nhss/NHSS%20Information%20Booklet.pdf.Google Scholar
Eichler, M and Pfau-Effinger, B (2009) The consumer principle in the care of elderly people: free choice and actual choice in the German welfare state. Social Policy and Administration 43, 617–633.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
England, P (2005) Theories of care. Annual Review of Sociology 31, 381–399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Esping-Andersen, G (1990) The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Esping-Andersen, G (1999) Social Foundations of Postindustrial Economies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Estevez-Abe, M, Yang, J-J and Choi, YJ (2016) Beyond familialism: recalibrating family, state and market in Southern Europe and East Asia. Journal of European Social Policy 26, 301–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eurofound (2017) Statutory Minimum Wages in the EU 2017. Available at https://www.eurofound.europa.eu/sites/default/files/ef1703en.pdf.Google Scholar
European Commission (2014) Adequate Social Protection for Long-term Care Needs in an Ageing Society. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.Google Scholar
European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions (2012) European Quality of Life Survey 2012. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.Google Scholar
Fraser, N (1990) Rethinking the public sphere: a contribution to the critique of actually existing democracy. Social Text 25/26, 56–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frericks, P, Jensen, PH and Pfau-Effinger, B (2014) Social rights and employment rights related to family care – family care regimes in Europe. Journal of Aging Studies 29, 66–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Geissler, B and Pfau-Effinger, B (2005) Change of European care arrangements. In Pfau-Effinger, B and Geissler, B (eds), Care Arrangements and Social Integration in European Societies. Bristol, UK: Policy Press, pp. 3–19.Google Scholar
Gori, C, Fernandez, J-L and Wittenberg, R (eds) (2016) Long-term Care Reforms in OECD Countries – Successes and Failures. Bristol, UK: Policy Press.Google Scholar
Grootegoed, E, Knijn, T and Da Roit, B (2010) Relatives as paid care-givers: how family carers experience payments for care. Ageing & Society 30, 467–489.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guo, J and Gilbert, N (2007) Welfare state regimes and family policy: a longitudinal analysis. International Journal of Social Welfare 16, 307–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Health Service Executive (2016) Home Care Package Scheme: Information Booklet. Available at http://www.hse.ie/eng/services/list/4/olderpeople/benefitsentitlements/HCPinfobooklet.pdf.Google Scholar
Himmelweit, S (2008) Policy on care: a help or hindrance to gender inequality. In Scott, J, Dex, S and Joshi, H (eds), Women and Employment: Changing Lives and New Challenges. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar, pp. 347–368.Google Scholar
Janoušková, M, Kampichler, M and Saxonberg, S (2014) Czech report – the city of Brno. In Kuronen, M, Kröger, T, Pfau-Effinger, B and Frericks, P (eds), A Comparative Analysis of Welfare Systems in 11 European Cities (FLOWS Working Paper). Aalborg, Denmark: University of Aalborg, pp. 156–225.Google Scholar
Kazepov, Y (ed.) (2010) Rescaling Social Policies Towards Multilevel Governance in Europe: Social Assistance, Activation and Care for Older People. Farnham, UK: Ashgate.Google Scholar
Knijn, T and Kremer, M (1997) Gender and the caring dimension of welfare states: toward inclusive citizenship. Social Politics 4, 328–361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knijn, T and Ostner, I (2002) Commodification and de-commodification. In Hobson, B, Lewis, J and Siim, B (eds), Contested Concepts in Gender and Social Politics. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar, pp. 141–169.Google Scholar
Knijn, T and Verhagen, S (2007) Contested professionalism. Payments for care and the quality of home care. Administration and Society 39, 451–475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kröger, T (2011) Defamilisation, dedomestication and care policy: comparing childcare service provisions of welfare states. International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy 31, 424–440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lamura, G, Polverini, F, Principi, A, Balducci, C, Melchiorre, GM, Quattrini, S and Gianelli, MV (2004) National Background Report for Italy. Hamburg: EUROFAMCARE.Google Scholar
Leira, A and Saraceno, C (2002) Care – actors, relationships and contexts. In Hobson, B, Lewis, J and Siim, B (eds), Contested Concepts in Gender and Social Politics. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar, pp. 55–84.Google Scholar
Leitner, S (2003) Varieties of familialism: the caring function of the family in comparative perspective. European Societies 4, 353–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leitner, S (2013) Varianten des Familialismus. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Léon, M (ed.) (2014) The Transformation of Care in European Societies. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Lewis, J (1992) Gender and the development of welfare regimes. Journal of European Social Policy 2, 159–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lister, R (1994) She has other duties. Women, citizenship and social security. In Baldwin, S and Falkingham, J (eds), Social Security and Social Change: New Challenges. Hemel Hempstead, UK: Harvester Wheatsheaf, pp. 31–44.Google Scholar
Lohmann, H and Zagel, H (2016) Family policy in comparative perspective: the concepts and measurement of familization and defamilization. Journal of European Social Policy 26, 48–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyon, D and Glucksmann, M (2008) Comparative configurations of care work across Europe. Sociology: The Journal of the British Sociological Association 42, 101–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mahon, E, Bailey, J and O'Nolan, C (2014) Local welfare systems supporting female employment in Dublin. FLOWS Working Paper 30. Available at http://www.flows-eu.eu/fileadmin/user_upload/Work_packages/WP3/Working_papers/WP_30.pdf.Google Scholar
McLaughlin, E and Glendinning, C (1994) Paying for care in Europe: is there a feminist approach? In Hantrais, L and Mangen, S (eds), Family Policy and the Welfare of Women. Loughborough, UK: European Research Centre, pp. 52–69.Google Scholar
Mutual Information System on Social Protection (MISSOC) (2017) Comparative Tables on Social Protection 2017. Results: XII. Long-term Care. Available at https://www.missoc.org/missoc-database/comparative-tables/.Google Scholar
Och, R (2015) Centralisation and decentralisation of eldercare policies in Europe. In Kutsar, D and Kuronen, M (eds), Local Welfare Policy Making in European Cities. Berlin: Springer, pp. 163–178.Google Scholar
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (2017) OECD Labour Force Statistics 2016. Paris: OECD Publishing.Google Scholar
Orloff, AS (1993) Gender and the social rights of citizenship: the comparative analysis of gender relations and welfare states. American Sociological Review 58, 303–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Österle, A (2010) Long-term care in Central and South-Eastern Europe: challenges and perspectives in addressing a ‘new’ social risk. Social Policy and Administration 44, 461–480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pavolini, E and Ranci, C (2008) Restructuring the welfare state: reforms in long-term care in Western European countries. Journal of European Social Policy 18, 246–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pfau-Effinger, B (2005 a) Culture and welfare state policies – reflections on a complex interrelation. Journal of Social Policy 34, 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pfau-Effinger, B (2005 b) Welfare state policies and the development of care arrangements. European Societies 7, 321–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pfau-Effinger, B, Jensen, PH and Och, R (2011) Tension between a consumer approach to social citizenship and social rights of family carers: a comparison between Germany and Denmark. Nordic Journal of Social Research 2, 7–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ranci, C and Pavolini, E (2013) Reforms in long-term care policies in Europe – an introduction. In Ranci, C and Pavolini, E (eds), Reforms in Long-term Care Policies in Europe. New York, NY: Springer, pp. 3–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ranci, C and Pavolini, E (2015) Not all that glitters is gold – long-term care reforms in the last two decades in Europe. Journal of European Social Policy 25, 270–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rothgang, H, Iwansky, S, Müller, R, Sauer, S and Unger, R (2011) BARMER GEK Pflegereport 2011. Schwerpunktthema. Zusätzliche Betreuungsleistungen für Personen mit erheblich eingeschränkter Alltagskompetenz (Schriftenreihe zur Gesundheitsanalyse 11). St. Augustin, Germany: Asgard Verlag.Google Scholar
Rummery, K (2009) A comparative discussion of the gendered implications of cash-for-care schemes – markets, independence and social citizenship in crisis? Social Policy and Administration 43, 634–648.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sainsbury, D (1996) Gender, Equality and Welfare States. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sainsbury, D (ed.) (1999) Gender and Welfare State Regimes. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saraceno, C (2016) Varieties of familialism: comparing four Southern European and East Asian welfare regimes. Journal of European Social Policy 26, 314–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saraceno, C and Keck, W (2010) Can we identify intergenerational policy regimes in Europe? European Societies 12, 675–696.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saxonberg, S (2013) From defamilialization to degenderization: toward a new welfare typology. Social Policy and Administration 47, 26–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schäfer, A and Gottschall, K (2015) From wage regulation to wage gap. How wage-setting institutions and structures shape the gender wage gap across three industries in 24 European countries and Germany. Cambridge Journal of Economics 39, 467–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Theobald, H (2012) Home-based care provision within the German welfare mix. Health and Social Care in the Community 20, 274–282.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Thomas, C (1993) De-constructing concepts of care. Sociology 27, 649–669.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Timonen, V, Doyle, M and O'Dwyer, C (2012) Expanded, but not regulated: ambiguity in home-care policy in Ireland. Health and Social Care in the Community 20, 310–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tronto, JC (1993) Moral Boundaries. A Political Argument for an Ethic of Care. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Ungerson, C (2004) Whose empowerment and independence? A cross-national perspective on ‘Cash for Care’ schemes. Ageing & Society 24, 189–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ungerson, C and Yeandle, S (eds) (2007) Cash for Care in Developed Welfare States. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave.Google Scholar
US State Department (2016) Country Reports on Human Rights Practices. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
Waerness, K (1987) On the rationality of caring. In Sassoon, AS (ed.), Women and the State. London: Hutchinson, pp. 207–234.Google Scholar